Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. In case of SCJ Plastics Ltd. vs. Creative Wares Ltd., 2012 VII AD (Delhi) 447 High Court of Delhi held that object of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code is that in appropriate cases litigations should not continue unnecessarily once it is found that there are categorical admissions and judicial process cannot be abused to delay the matter. It relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalpatram Iccharam alias Brijram and Anr. MANU/SC/0417/1973 wherein in was held that:

"From a conspectus of the cases cited at the bar, the principle that emerges is, that if as the time of the passing of the decree, there was some material before the Court, on the basis of which, the Court could be prima facie satisfied, about the existence of a statutory ground for eviction, it will be presumed that the Court was so satisfied and the decree for eviction though apparently passed on the basis of a compromise, would be valid. Such material may take the shape of either of evidence recorded or produced in the case, or, it may partly or wholly in the shape of an express or implied admission made in the compromise agreement, itself. Admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible u/s 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admission. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitutes a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made foundation of the rights of the parties."